Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
STUNNING 911 Video - No 2nd plane?
#1
This recent video by Hibbeler Productions, contains multiple video clips (from many different angles) taken on the day of the 911 twin towers collapse.

It demonstrates (quite conclusively) that there was no (2nd) plane...

It also demonstrates the CGI trickery that could have been used on the "Live" TV feed that so many people relied on as they "saw for themselves" what happened.

Thoughts?



tinybighuh Being Rogue is WEIRD, But I LIKE IT!tinyfunny 
Reply
#2
Quite compelling.
minusculethumbsup
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#3
(08-02-2019, 12:25 PM)BIAD Wrote: Quite compelling.
minusculethumbsup

Yes, very Compelling,,,,,, Except,,,,,,,, I am married to a Witness of the First and Second Plane hits.

Yes, My husband was there not three blocks away out side of a Alphabet Agencies Safe House,,,,, "kind of."
Back when my husband smoked two packs a day. 
I was in China soon to be quitting the Alphabet Agency I worked for to join my husband in America.
We heard about this as it was happening in China through our Consulate in NY.

That is Okay, like my husband always says to people, "Maybe I didn't see what I show because Dust, Smoke, Flames, Plane parts and Body Parts where Clouding My Vision and Making My Eyes Water!"
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#4
In the footage shown, I also saw no birds, bugs, people, cars, busses, trucks, etc. The whole thing must have been CGI, therefore the WTC must still be standing. Almost any city in the world will have bugs, birds, people, cars, busses, trucks, etc.

Seriously. there are a plethora of angles the building were filmed from. Some of them would not have shown an approaching plane if it were coming from the other side of the building. That would just have shown the side of a building blowing out for no apparent reason.

Some of the shots were from so far away an airplane would not have registered on the camera CCD, so, no plane (also no bugs, birds, people, cars, busses, trucks, etc.).

Some of these people were pretty clearly not demolitions experts. For example, one lady said it was a "bomb", because everything blew outwards. Every explosion I've ever seen scattered stuff outwards in all directions from the point of explosion. None of them gave a crap what angle the bomb came from when they were scattering shit to the wind.

One guy said it was "physically impossible" for a 747 to go through a building, which is utter bullshit. I've seen a chunk of soft lead go entirely through a plate of steel. It's just a matter of speed and momentum. I used to have a party trick where I could drive a plastic drinking straw through a solid potato - same thing, speed and momentum... although in the case of the straw, covering one end with a thumb also increases the air pressure inside the straw (making it a little stiffer) as it's driven through the potato.

Now, the side by side video of plane/no plane was interesting. Watch it again. The fireballs shown emerging from the building do not match, so there is nothing there to make me believe that they are the same video with a CGI plane added into one. One of those videos probably WAS CGI, but I'll let you decide for yourself which you believe it was. One had a CGI fireball, but you decide for yourself whether it was the one WITH a reason for an explosion or the one WITHOUT a reason for an explosion.

"Where did the wing go"? Another camera angle in this same documentary clearly shows where it went - You can see the illumination line on the wing change as the plane banks, making part of the wing "vanish" from a different angle, from a distance, in video that has been copied over and over and over again.

One more thought, just to muddy the waters a bit more. It's pretty easy to erase a plane from a video if one were so inclined to, in order to support a narrative that would fall apart WITH a plane in the video. It's easier still if the background of the plane is a clear blue sky without clouds. You can do it yourself in the comfort of your home. All you would need are a couple of pieces of off the shelf software. You would first need to deconstruct the video into it's constituent frames. I would use "Avidemux" for that, simply because that is what I have laying around here. Once the frames are deconstructed into individual photos, you would just need to step through each one and remove the plane. I would use "inPixio" for that. It does a great job, and it's fast. The you just recompile the frames and audio back into a video. Presto! no mo plane.

So those are most of my thoughts. Another is wondering who is promoting this narrative, and why. What are they trying to distract attention from that would otherwise be concentrated from legions of folks being distracted by this? There is no "there" there, but folks are not noticing where a "there" IS because they are concentrating on this Pied Piper narrative.

.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#5
Perhaps people need to think about the logistics of placing  explosives in a building that has 1000s of people walking about it 24/7 so that noone notices it. Think about the amount of explosives you need to get into the building and the amount of people needed to do it, remember the explosives have to be placed in predetermined places. Its not like you could walk in to an office and say, "Can you move that table I need to place a 50kg bomb there.
There is a simple rule, the more people involved in an operation the greater the chance someone will talk.
So im going with the planes been used,because it easy for a small group to control the group that did the attack but the question is who is behind the people who were behind this attack
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, THE EU IS FATHER AND MOTHER
Reply
#6
Oh, I get that there are angles from which an approaching plane would not be seen, that's a given.
But SOME of the angles shown in that video are very similar to the broadcast footage which clearly showed the flight of the 2nd plane coming in. That's a bit more concerning!
The differences in the ball of fire from the explosion could just be from the slightly different viewing angle of the 2nd footage?

With regards to the potential placement of the alleged explosives...
To be effective, the explosives would have to be placed at key points in the structural supports of the tower(s) not in the offices etc.
A small "maintenance" team sent in by the owners could very easily "inspect" all of the non-public areas without being noticed at all, and could do so day-after-day, week-after-week.
It's on record that the towers were structurally "inspected" in the months leading up to 911 and that it was tied in with the OWNERS INCREASING THEIR INSURANCE COVER TO INCLUDE ACTS OF TERRORISM INCLUDING PLANE STRIKES!
Wouldn't that open the door for the owners to use an "external" inspection/maintenance crew (to inspect on behalf of the insurers)...??

If there is CGI involved...
I can very much understand why TPTB would "insert" a plane into the shot to support their OS narrative that terrorists used a plane to hit each tower.
If the plane(s) was (were) removed from the shots then.... why? Just distraction...?  From what?

I wasn't there and I will absolutely concede to anyone who was there on the ground and actually SAW the 2nd plane hitting the 2nd tower. (Not just the explosion or "live" TV coverage of it). (Apart from the crisis actors shown on the TV that day!!!)
But, if it was planes (and only planes) that brought down the twin towers.... what about the Salomon Building (WTC7)? (BBC reported LIVE that it had collapsed when it was still clearly visible standing in the background of their shot almost 30mins BEFORE it actually collapsed.)
What about the Pentagon? Where is the footage which clearly shows that a plane hit one of the most protected and watched buildings in the world? What do they have to lose by releasing the footage?
What about the other plane that crashed in (was it) Pennsylvania? Wreckage anyone? No?

something doesn't add up....
tinybighuh Being Rogue is WEIRD, But I LIKE IT!tinyfunny 
Reply
#7
I'm sticking by what Dr. Judy Wood said in her video. She offered the most compelling evidence I've come across yet that "free energy" weapons, or "the rod of God" technology was used on the buildings.

One of her videos was taken down. That alone tells me she was over the target and the Powers That Be didn't want that information getting out.

I believe there were probably explosives set to go off too in order to have the building fall in it's own footprint.


My thread about her is HERE
Reply
#8
(08-03-2019, 05:00 PM)gordi Wrote: The differences in the ball of fire from the explosion could just be from the slightly different viewing angle of the 2nd footage?

That's a possibility, although the shots look identical other than the plane/fireball anomalies. Another possibility that I've not investigated could be that the timing is slightly different in the videos on either side of the split screen, which could potentially account for the mismatched fireballs in any given instant of the split screen video.

Quote:With regards to the potential placement of the alleged explosives...
To be effective, the explosives would have to be placed at key points in the structural supports of the tower(s) not in the offices etc.
A small "maintenance" team sent in by the owners could very easily "inspect" all of the non-public areas without being noticed at all, and could do so day-after-day, week-after-week.

Not just on structural supports, but at specific places on the structural supports. To verify this for yourself, re-watch the video and notice ALL of the other building demolitions shown to try illustrating the point that it was demolition charges that brought the WTC down. On the WTC, the explosion was at the level of the alleged airplane entry, at about the 78th floor. Demolition charges are set lower, much closer to ground level, as can be seen in the various demolition videos included in the documentary. That is because a higher charge may not sufficiently damage the support structures, and could potentially leave a very dangerous, unstable, and large portion of the building standing. That would in turn necessitate sending in further demo crews to do the job right the second time. The hazardous duty pay for that would be astronomical... not to mention highly visible by a world watching closely - not the best methodology for an alleged black-bag, clandestine job.

Furthermore, the fireball blossoms directly from the 78th floor office windows. It would be difficult to say the least to surreptitiously plant hundreds of pounds of explosive in those offices while having to work around curious office workers.

Also notice that the fireball bloomed from one side of the building. In the actual demolition videos shown, it comes from ALL sides of the building, and it's done simultaneously. Destabilizing one side of a building is a BAD idea just as destabilizing one side of a tree when felling it is a GOOD idea - it allows you to control which way the tree falls. If a demolished building falls sideways, bad idea, as it destroys several more surrounding buildings. You want to drop it straight down. True enough that is exactly what WTC did, but that was just the luck of the draw, not from poorly planned demolitions.

Quote:If there is CGI involved...
I can very much understand why TPTB would "insert" a plane into the shot to support their OS narrative that terrorists used a plane to hit each tower.
If the plane(s) was (were) removed from the shots then.... why? Just distraction...?  From what?

TPTB would not be the ones removing it. the people with a vested interest in pushing the 911 conspiracy narrative would be the ones in need of making an airplane disappear so they could claim there was no airplane there, and therefore a demolition job.

Quote:But, if it was planes (and only planes) that brought down the twin towers.... what about the Salomon Building (WTC7)? (BBC reported LIVE that it had collapsed when it was still clearly visible standing in the background of their shot almost 30mins BEFORE it actually collapsed.)

I confess to not knowing very much about WTC7. I don't know what it looked like, nor could I pick it out of the hundreds of buildings in the BBC background shot. I also cannot be certain that the "background shot" was not stock footage on a green screen behind the reporter. I just don't know enough about it either way.

Quote:What about the Pentagon? Where is the footage which clearly shows that a plane hit one of the most protected and watched buildings in the world? What do they have to lose by releasing the footage?
What about the other plane that crashed in (was it) Pennsylvania? Wreckage anyone? No?

something doesn't add up....

The Pentagon hit was only captured on one camera, on the grounds outside the Pentagon. Now, I know personally from my experience in security, and with security cameras at that time, that external grounds cameras are not considered "critical areas". They are not, for example, placed there to try catching people stealing documents. Cameras in those areas are generally wide-angle, and take one image every 20 seconds. That is plenty enough to capture people or ground vehicles approaching, given a wide enough angle on the camera. Unfortunately, no one planned for an airplane flying into the Pentagon at speed and at ground level. The frames that the camera captured were a streaking indeterminate blur, the edge of a fireball, and then smoke, dust, and debris. The images were not widely released because they didn't really show anything other than what one could see by simply going to the Pentagon and surveying the destruction.

And - they may have had a classification level, given that they were surveillance for the Pentagon. The frames were black and white, not really visually spectacular.

I recall that at the time, analysts were studying the image of the blurred streak, trying to determine if it was really an airplane, or some sort of missile. There was not enough information present in that frame to make a certain determination between the two. The airplane wreckage in the Pentagon gave a far more certain indicator. I believe some of it made it all the way through into the central atrium.

Regarding the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash, it's as easy for me to believe that an airplane obliterated itself by being purposely driven into the ground from 30,000 feet as it is for me to believe that excavation crews and equipment somehow got in there undetected by the residents and dug out that huge crater hole, also undetected by the residents, but forgot to leave enough wreckage laying around to indicate a controlled crash where pilots were attempting to make a safe landing gone horribly wrong.

.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#9
(08-04-2019, 05:12 AM)Ninurta Wrote: Not just on structural supports, but at specific places on the structural supports. To verify this for yourself, re-watch the video and notice ALL of the other building demolitions shown to try illustrating the point that it was demolition charges that brought the WTC down. On the WTC, the explosion was at the level of the alleged airplane entry, at about the 78th floor. Demolition charges are set lower, much closer to ground level, as can be seen in the various demolition videos included in the documentary. That is because a higher charge may not sufficiently damage the support structures, and could potentially leave a very dangerous, unstable, and large portion of the building standing. That would in turn necessitate sending in further demo crews to do the job right the second time. The hazardous duty pay for that would be astronomical... not to mention highly visible by a world watching closely - not the best methodology for an alleged black-bag, clandestine job.

Furthermore, the fireball blossoms directly from the 78th floor office windows. It would be difficult to say the least to surreptitiously plant hundreds of pounds of explosive in those offices while having to work around curious office workers.

Also notice that the fireball bloomed from one side of the building. In the actual demolition videos shown, it comes from ALL sides of the building, and it's done simultaneously. Destabilizing one side of a building is a BAD idea just as destabilizing one side of a tree when felling it is a GOOD idea - it allows you to control which way the tree falls. If a demolished building falls sideways, bad idea, as it destroys several more surrounding buildings. You want to drop it straight down. True enough that is exactly what WTC did, but that was just the luck of the draw, not from poorly planned demolitions.
Hi Nin,
Just a quick reply to one point right now (I'm having to go out into the RL in a few mins!!! LOL)

The references to "controlled demolition" aren't talking about the plane-impact fireball explosion.
They are referring to the multiple smaller explosions which occurred as the towers actually came down.
Witnesses reported hearing a "boom-boom-boom-boom..." sound, and vertical lines of smaller explosions throwing dust/debris out from descending floors of the building in sequence are clearly visible in many of the videos. (Exactly as seen in the comparison demolition videos).
cheers,
G
tinybighuh Being Rogue is WEIRD, But I LIKE IT!tinyfunny 
Reply
#10
Want to play a game? (cue laughter)- re target 9H85RTCV2U

post #50
Quote:gordi
Clear blue sky, low hazy sun, wispy white cloud in the distance. We're high up, Image taken from a plane
?


This is recent but not present day (Last 20 years or so maybe?) and it's quite early... 9am?

I'm thinking "North". N.America? or maybe just "North"?

I can't see who's here. Although the outside scene is "serene" I feel that I'm deliberately looking out... away from something that's happening close-by on the inside.

My gut feeling is that I'm looking out from a plane where something has gone terribly wrong. My thoughts are drifting to loved ones, like I know we're going to die/crash???

This obviously brings terrorism or bombing to mind, but I'm leaning towards an accidental and catastrophic failure leading to a plane crash or possible "miracle" avoidance of a crash?

G
(Close or Far-off - I love how the mind "drifts" into these things!)


and

post 51

Quote:[quote pid='22696' dateline='1519661691']
Mystic Wanderer
[quote pid='22685' dateline='1519619366']
Armonica_Templar9H85RTCV2U

I see a large body of water, land far off in the distance. I'm viewing the water from land, feel like I'm standing on a small shore by myself.  Sunny blue skies. I see a boat in the water in the distance, and also get the feeling there might be a submarine in the water.

I don't know where this is located, but I feel I'm there on the shore/beach just enjoying the serenity of the view, while also knowing the serenity could be disturbed easily if something happened. It hasn't happened yet, but it could, whatever it is.

That's all I'm getting.

[/quote]






[/quote]

post #52

Quote:BIAD
9H85RTCV2U


A large barrier, maybe bushy trees on my left that carries on into the distance. That distance -I feel, isn't that far,
it's just the sight curvature of the treeline that stops me from seeing it's end.
It's blurry, so that's what makes me think it's foliage.

There's something like a hedgerow on my right that quite tall, but not as high as the trees and the light mainly
comes from that side.

I feel I'm in an orchard -or at least, a managed small forest. I can't see it, but there's a five-bar gate behind me
and I assume, a farm lane beyond.

Apart from long grass underfoot and two tractor ruts running parallel to the treeline, that's all I can see.


Post #53


Quote:Armonica_Templar[Image: fb9cb11710f2dafbd8520be233a87962.jpg]

South Tower impact 
what caused the building to collapse 
9H85RTCV2U

@gordi 
got the best answer
tinyhuh

@Mystic Wanderer
I am curious over whose sub? If this was a crv session I would follow up
A sub???

That is interesting
edit: I had to sit because of your answers (all of you)
Mystic.. This is a good point to follow up on if you find the time
did you also answer the question I added with the photo

@BIAD 
I am curious what lead to this
you have been batting a thousand

If this was a session I would follow the link back to the photo
It is possible you followed the question from the photo
Does not count for you, but it should be followed up

just wow


I thought I would add this
Reply
#11
(08-05-2019, 04:38 AM)Armonica_Templar Wrote: Want to play a game? (cue laughter)- re target 9H85RTCV2U

post #50
Quote:gordi
Clear blue sky, low hazy sun, wispy white cloud in the distance. We're high up, Image taken from a plane
?


This is recent but not present day (Last 20 years or so maybe?) and it's quite early... 9am?

I'm thinking "North". N.America? or maybe just "North"?

I can't see who's here. Although the outside scene is "serene" I feel that I'm deliberately looking out... away from something that's happening close-by on the inside.

My gut feeling is that I'm looking out from a plane where something has gone terribly wrong. My thoughts are drifting to loved ones, like I know we're going to die/crash???

This obviously brings terrorism or bombing to mind, but I'm leaning towards an accidental and catastrophic failure leading to a plane crash or possible "miracle" avoidance of a crash?

G
(Close or Far-off - I love how the mind "drifts" into these things!)


Quote:...just wow


I thought I would add this

Wow yeah!
I remember that. (Quite freaky really!!!)
G

PS - Happy Birthday!
minusculebeercheers
tinybighuh Being Rogue is WEIRD, But I LIKE IT!tinyfunny 
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)